Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Phase 2 study of cetuximab (Erbitux) in patients with progressive or recurrent endometrial cancer
  1. Brian M Slomovitz1,
  2. Anca Chelariu-Raicu2,
  3. Kathleen M Schmeler2,
  4. Karen H Lu2,
  5. David M Gershenson2,
  6. Judith Wolf2 and
  7. Robert L Coleman2,3
  1. 1Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Broward Health Medical Center, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, USA
  2. 2Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
  3. 3The US Oncology Network, The Woodlands, Texas, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Robert L Coleman, The US Oncology Network, The Woodlands, TX 77380, USA; rcoleman{at}gog.org

Abstract

Introduction Overexpression of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) found in common subtypes of endometrial cancer has been associated with advanced stage disease and a poor prognosis. The purpose of this phase 2 study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of cetuximab in patients with recurrent endometrial cancer.

Methods The study was an open-label phase 2 clinical trial conducted at two institutions. Patients with recurrent or progressive endometrial cancer of any histologic type with the exception of uterine sarcoma received cetuximab at an initial dose of 400 mg/m2 IV followed by weekly doses of 250 mg/m2. One cycle was considered 4 weeks of treatment. The primary efficacy endpoint was clinical benefit response, defined as a complete or partial response or prolonged stable disease (>8 weeks) by RECIST 1.0 criteria.

Results A total of 30 patients were enrolled with a median age of 64 years (range 42–83). Of the 20 evaluable patients, three (15%) had clinical benefit response (one complete response, two stable disease). The patient with a clinical benefit response received a total of 27 cycles and the two patients with stable disease were taken off the study due to progression after four and six cycles, respectively. Of the 10 inevaluable patients, nine received ≤1 cycle due to clinical deterioration and one had an anaphylactic reaction. One patient had a grade 3 rash which resolved after a delay in treatment. No dose reduction was reported.

Conclusions In this cohort, single agent therapy with cetuximab was well tolerated and had a 15% clinical benefit response. Further studies are required to better identify patients who may respond to this treatment.

  • uterine cancer
  • neoplasm recurrence
  • local
  • neoplasm metastasis
View Full Text

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Correction notice This article has been corrected since it was first published Online First. The author names Robert Coleman and David Gershenson have been updated to Robert L Coleman and David M Gershenson.

  • Contributors Conception and design: All authors. Administrative support: This trial was investigator initiated, but sponsored by Bristol Myers Squibb. The grant was awarded to Principal Investigator BS. Provision of study materials or patients: BS. Collection and assembly of data: BS. Data analysis and interpretation: BS. Manuscript writing: AC-R, BS. Final approval of manuscript: All authors.

  • Funding This study was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb.

  • Competing interests BS: consultant for Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Clovis, GOG Foundation, GSK, Merck, Myriad. DG: Equity interest: Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, Procter and Gamble; Consulting: Genentech; Research grants: National Cancer Institute, Novartis; Royalities: Elsevier, UpToDate; Board Membership: NCI Clinical Trials and Translational Research Advisory Committee. RC: Clinical research funding: Merck, AstraZeneca/Medimmune, Genentech/Roche, Novartis, Clovis Oncology, Abbvie, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals; Consulting fees: Genmab, Tesaro, Agenus, OncoMed, Novocure, Oncoquest, Merck, AstraZeneca/Medimmune, Genentech/Roche, Novartis, Clovis Oncology, Abbvie, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Aravive, OncoSec.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Ethics approval The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data availability statement All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information. In accordance with the journal’s guidelines, we will provide our data for the reproducibility of this study in other centers if such is requested.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.